Thread: Amiga Vs ST
View Single Post
Old 30 July 2009, 02:31   #179
Registered User
Ricardo's Avatar
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Nottingham / UK
Posts: 140

Originally Posted by dlfrsilver View Post
The amiga can do dynamic palettizing (ex: Pang, Golden Axe). On pang it's impossible to see the palette changes, while it's visible on golden Axe.
Where was "dynamic palettizing" used in Amiga Golden Axe?

I used a Mega 4 ST to develop in which I had an aftermarket 16MHz 68000 (with 8K 16MHz external cache as I recall) - which ran really well but the stock 512 and 1040 ST's were 8MHz. In the early days the Amiga wasn't really supported because of its price, then games got ported from ST to Amiga, not really using the Amiga's hardware. Then games were developed for both, starting to use the Amiga's custom chips. Then there was Amiga development with a really bad ST conversion because the hardware wasn't upto it and finally the ST died and Amiga went it alone for a while.

Whilst the Amiga has lots of lovely hardware I always felt restricted by the custom chips only being able to access 512K, once 1MB of memory was common. FAT Agnus meant more memory was accessible on the A500+, A600 and A1200 (gross agnus ) but commercially I had to write for the common platform which was A500.

The Amiga's hardware also stole cycles off the 68K, particularly with the blitter running full blast, but there was still the opportunity for some parallel processing although I doubt the hardware in the Amiga would have been much use for 3D modelling hence David Braben's comments re: ST CPU speed.

The Amiga's hardware sprites were a frustration to, I thought they were a bit messy and were only suitable for games which had been designed to use them if you see what I mean. Although their usage created some nice, interesting code.

The Amiga's hardware also had some timing issues, not all Amiga's were built the same. Software which was at the limit of the machine worked OK on some Amiga's but on others there were display glitches etc so certain things were restricted. Whereas an ST was an ST, worked on all of them.

As far as games are concerned, the operating systems were meaningless - I never used any of the ST's OS and the only thing I ever asked the Amiga's OS was "what CPU have you got?", "how much memory"? and "where is is?" then all the vectors got overwritten and I took over

Ultimately the ST was a better work tool and the Amiga a better console, what made me laugh was how serious the people who wrote the Amiga's OS were thinking it was some kind of business machine - Commodore only got hold of it by accident, it should really have been an Atari in my opinion. As Jay Miner said, "I am not surprised at what people have done with the Amiga but it still amazes me what people do with the Atari 400 and 800". For me the Amiga will always be the Atari 16000

Ricardo is offline  
Page generated in 0.07564 seconds with 9 queries